>they should do so because the support revenue stemming from applets is surely outweighed by the damage to their brand overall.
'Surely'?
If that were the case, why wouldn't Oracle have already done so?
Why don't you assume that Oracle has already run the numbers on how much they collect from enterprise contracts to support all manner of legacy technologies (including applets) and choose to exploit it? A good portion of Oracle exists just to service that revenue stream.
You want them to also drop another revenue stream (Ask/Yahoo co-branding) because of the "damage to their brand overall" from a co-branded installer? Sounds like a good way to give Larry a chuckle.
I doubt many who care about the terrible JRE installer would suddenly start sending cash Oracle's way because they removed the Ask/Yahoo bundle.
'Surely'?
If that were the case, why wouldn't Oracle have already done so?
Why don't you assume that Oracle has already run the numbers on how much they collect from enterprise contracts to support all manner of legacy technologies (including applets) and choose to exploit it? A good portion of Oracle exists just to service that revenue stream.
You want them to also drop another revenue stream (Ask/Yahoo co-branding) because of the "damage to their brand overall" from a co-branded installer? Sounds like a good way to give Larry a chuckle.
I doubt many who care about the terrible JRE installer would suddenly start sending cash Oracle's way because they removed the Ask/Yahoo bundle.